ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2025
What do colorectal specialists think about female participation in anal intercourse? An online survey of UK coloproctologists.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perceptions and experiences of receptive anal intercourse among women: a systematic review and thematic analysis.BMJ public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing participation in anal intercourse (AI) raises questions about its effects on the female anus. Societal change has moved faster than published literature.
methodOnline survey of Association of Coloproctology of Great Britian & Ireland (ACPGBI) and Association of Surgeons of Great Britain & Ireland (ASGBI) members to document clinical practice regarding female AI; opinion on female AI in causation of anal pathology; barriers to discussing AI; possible harms and harm reduction and public information.
results91% of consultant colorectal surgeons (CCS) agree female AI causes anal fissures. Only 25% usually or always ask young women with fissures about AI and 31% never ask. Enquiry increases with refractory fissures (34%) and vulnerable patients (57%); 48% of CCS cite fear of patient discomfort, and 40% fear what the patient thinks of them as barriers to enquiry. Eighty per cent of CCS and 85% of pelvic floor specialists (PFS) agree AI can cause internal anal sphincter (IAS) damage and 72% and 78% faecal incontinence (FI) in women. Eleven per cent of CCS and no PFS agreed relaxation techniques, and 17% and 14% lubrication, protect the IAS; 97% of CCS think there should be increased public health awareness about female AI.
conclusionsExperts think participation in AI can cause fissures, IAS damage and FI in women. They are sceptical about the protective value of lubrication and relaxation. Clinical conversations lag behind experts' opinions on the importance and possible consequences of female AI. Concern over patients' feelings are barriers to enquiry. Colorectal specialists think there should be more public health information about female AI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.